I don’t believe the science presented by Cosmos is that inconsistent with God creating the universe and life. God uses the big bang to create the universe. He creates and evolves the earth as a home that will support life. And, He creates life that will evolve.
****************************************
That’s the same as the idea I developed 60 years ago and I’m now 71. I was raised in the church until then and finally stopped the indoctrination at age 14.
I believe that evolution began with the creation of our world and has continued since. .....I don’t get why “creationists” don’t understand that evolution is the means to the end of the desired result. .......JMO
I don’t get why “creationists” don’t understand that evolution is the means to the end of the desired result. .......JMO
***********
I’m a creationist. And also a geoscientist. I also used to think like you did until I learned more about evolution. The trouble with “evolution” in the Darwinistic view of things, there are too many transition stages that aren’t evident, and that time does not allow for. Even some (maybe most now?) of the evolutionist’s think in terms of “punctuated equilibrium”. Which in my layman’s terms means “and then something happened”. I know others more well versed in evolution and believe in it can argue their point better than I can mine.
But looking at the mathematical odds and the biology of things it seems to me that things get pretty complex too quickly to be an adaptation over time. So it seems like bad science to me. And now they just discovered that DNA has a duplicate, “hidden” code that provides twice as much info as they thought. (And Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA also realized that it didn’t “just happen” as it is too complex. So he believed in pansperma - or the idea that the DNA code was flung out from another civilization in order to preserve the information.)
The other thing about natural evolution in the strict sense, is that it ALL happened by CHANCE. There is no Creator, no God.
Now do I think God could have let things run for a bit, then when certain things were right (temperatures, oxygen, etc.) He could have tweeked things? Killed a bunch of things off after they had laid the ground work for other things? So a “guided evolution”? The evidence to me suggests something like that. But then that really isn’t natural evolution. (Also not very scientific either!)